Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (1187)

Weird subheading/Facebook

Just noting that currently (Sept. 2016) when the page URL for The Siege of Jerusalem is posted, this is chosen as the subheading or summary: "Unknown, 60 impromptu Ibelin knights, plus the city watch of men-at-arms, archers and people recruited into the city`s defence" - this is found in under "Siege Strength," later, farther down, on the page. Upshot is, I won't post it on FB. (Also it would make WikiP look bad.) 71.35.103.206 (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Pic

I don't think that using a screenshot from Kingdom of Heaven in the infobox of this article constitutes fair use. It should only be used in the article about the film. Does anyone have another image for this article? 98.27.7.29 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct, the use of screenshots from films under WP:FAIRUSE precludes this image being used here, whether or not a replacement is available. I've removed it. Benea (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

current article

hi, currently article reads more like a medieval narration rather then a military article, its deals with long stories of wht saladin says wht Balian of Ibelin did etc, a military article must not be like this one. It ought to include details of battle and siege plans the assaults and resultant negotiations in much more "militarized" manner. It didnt site any source or inline citation which make it look like a sort of original research. more over i was surprised to see the new military doctrine in the article (before i corrected it) which claims the result as "tactical draw" for the battle, possibly done by some random crazy ip address. any ways when invaders gains their objectives, it victory, or wht else is victory. my main concerns are about the possible original research and the un-encyclopedic style of the article. this is an important article about a historic event and therefore must not be dealt like an orphan. I was disappointed to read it and it looked "pathetic" From tomorrow i will start working on writing a more wht i like to call "militarized" version of this article which will be based mostly on david nicolle's excellent work hattin 1187 and fall of jerusalem. I will try working it out in a week or so. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 23:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not simply a military article. An article that included only numbers and manoeuvres would be just as weak. This is an important article and its importance goes beyond military matters. The article could use citations, of course, and David Nicolle would be a good place to start. I don't think there is any original research here though. I don't know where "tactical draw" came from, but that is somewhat true; Saladin could have easily taken the city by force, rather than negotiating for its surrender, and I assume that is what is meant by "tactical draw", but it was still a victory for Saladin. Anyway, please discuss your changes here first - Nicolle is not the only reference we can use, and I'm sure it will be easy to find references for everything that is already here. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, why to take a city by force when u are in position of negotiate a surrender. Who will love to destory his own army "Just for the ego of taking city by force", this isn't called tactical draw, as far as i know. What the point of draw in it ??? Saladin's men had breached the walls and sooner or later they would have entered the city, so Balian was the one who came for negociations and saladin granted him liberal terms. It is not fair to give an impression tht saladin's troops had failed in the efforts to breach the walls and suffering heavy casualties, he was forced to negociate a surrender !!!! dont know about others but modern historians seems to disagree with this medieval myth.

I will try giving references to current material in the article plus i will add siege stuff from nicolle's book, will also try finding some other book as well. Any ways i will work on the article in a sandbox once i will start working i will give u a link and u can check and discuss stuff to improve tht article. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 10:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

@Mohammad adil - I am tired of waiting your " militarized version " of Fall of Jerusalwm in 1187 . How much will I have to wait more ? 206.84.145.56 (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As a neutral observer: I agree that this should not be an article of military history, but rather a general historical article about the event of the siege and fall. The military aspect of this history could be added as a major section-- as well developed as one would wish to spend time making it -- so that ones interested in the military detail could focus in on it, and ones more interested in the overarching events could identify the mil hist section and skim or pass over.

Insofar as who won -- that result is clear. A victor does not have their populace ransomed or enslaved. I do not think the article, as it stands, overly exalts the position of the retreating Balian and those departing the city.

The link to the Nathan the Wise, as a dramatization of events relating to the later crusade, appears to be in the wrong place here. The only overlap is with regard to Saladin, and so this link should likely be moved to the article on that historical figure.

As a professional scholar I would thereafter, and broadly, suggest (i) the original author(s) of the article infuse what is here with the citations from which they worked, to eliminate the plagiarism issue, with correction/addition of further historical detail as they go, (ii) Mr adil add the military history *section* that is desired, to focus on the military details of the event, (iii) original and new authors search for rigorous, "cite-able" historical information on actual numbers of combatants, casualties, etc., as even order of magnitude estimates would be better than the uncertain impressions left by the current article, (iv) after doing this, all set aside the winner/loser perspective as clearly settled, and so remove the flags that diminish others view of the existing article, and (v) have, as Mr adil suggests, another party do a careful editorial read, of new additions, for unbiased information, good prose, etc.

Finally, overall, I would strongly suggest that the approach of fully writing a *replacement article* for this article **not** be followed. Doing so is most often perceived, rightly or wrongly as being disrespectful to the earlier authors and the wiki system (though I have been tempted to do this myself). Thorough-going inaccuracies in an article might justify it. **It is not justified here.** Keep what is here; add to it and improve it (I say/encourage). Prof D.

EDITED ARTICLE

Just so you know, somebody edited this article with a huge BIAS information. The actual size of Saladin's army were only about 20,000. The size of the Army in JErusalem were 55,000. Those were the info MONTHS BACK until some idiot changed it. How can Jerusalem only have that "small group of warriors" when they're infact, already in a city just as big as Jerusalem. Do you think the Crusaders would want that? Do they want to lose that easily? Jerusalem is one of the largest cities, and there were A LOT of soldiers inside it. Saladin couldn't bring as much as 100,000 men if they don't want the forces weakened on other places. All he needed to do was bring 20,000 of them, and slaughter that stupid Crusaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.169 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Presumably the numbers are exaggerated for both sides, especially for the Christians. But 55 000 crusaders defending Jerusalem against only 20 000 Muslims? How is that possible? The crusader army had already been wiped out at Hattin. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

How dumb can the Crusaders possibly be? Defending a city with just about 100 knights? Even for that it's impossible to take down that 'massive' numbers in the Ayyubids. So anyone who is exaggerating this is bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.177 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Decisive pyrrhic???

Can someone, anyone, explain me what is decisive pyrrhic victory??? Maybe its only POV, but this battle was decisive victory for Ayyubids because one of their most important goal was succssesfully completed, christian armies retreated to port-cities and strong presence of crusaders was eliminated until Third Crusade. If "pyrrhic" is only because of Ayyubid casualities, it is very mild reason. Sorry for my English.--92.62.226.31 (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Blatant Pro-Muslim Bias in "Aftermath"- Section

The section of this article that deals with the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem uses only pro-muslim sources, which in turn only refer to muslim primary sources. As a result Saladin and his men are portrayed as very compassionate and tolerant while the Christians are portrayed as greedy and selfish.

An example of this is when the article discusses the actions of Archbishop Heraclius, it says:

"The wealthy including the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, Heraclius left with treasure-laden wagons and relics from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Crusaders took the ornaments and treasures of their churches with them. The wealthy and the Crusaders didn't bother to ransom the poor who were unable to pay leaving them to be ransomed into slavery."

Now if you go to compare this with the wikipedia page on Heraclius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Heraclius_of_Jerusalem) you will find the opposite to be true, it reads as follows:

"He [Heraclius] and Balian had organised, and contributed to, a collection of 30,000 bezants to ransom the poorer citizens. This paid the ransoms for about 18,000 people, but another 15,000 people still needed to be paid for. Heraclius and Balian offered themselves as hostages in exchange for them, but Saladin refused, and so these remaining citizens were enslaved. The two men led the last party of refugees from the city at the end of the 40-day ransom period (mid-late November).

Saladin's secretary Imad al-Din al-Isfahani claimed that Heraclius stripped the gold reliquaries from the churches on the Temple Mount, and carried away cartloads of treasure with him. However, no Christian writers made such allegations against him. By this time, the churches in question had been converted back into mosques: it is likely that he had been permitted to remove their Christian fittings, which otherwise would have been destroyed."

On other places in the article we find the remarkable claim that "[Eastern Christians] knew that they would have more freedoms if the city were returned to the Muslims". I have not seen anything indicating that this would be the case, to the contrary eastern christians such as the armenians were very often allied to the crusaders against the muslims and in the siege of Jerusalem of 1099 the muslim governor expelled all the eastern christians from the city for fear of the joining the fight on the side of the crusaders. So again what is the evidence for this statement that eastern christians were better of under muslim rule.

Right after that we read that "Saladin preferred to take the city without bloodshed and offered generous terms, but those inside refused to leave their holy city, vowing to destroy it in a fight to the death rather than see it handed over peacefully". I find this claim rather remarkable too, since Saladin was recorded by Imad ad-Din as saying to the crusaders "Neither amnesty nor mercy for you! Our only desire is to inflict perpetual subjugation upon you; tomorrow will make us your masters by main force. We shall kill and capture you wholsale, spill men's blood and reduce the poor and the women to slavery." And as is noted later in this very article, Saladin had vowed to take the city by force and it was only after the Christians threatened to destroy the islamic holy places that Saladin agreed to negotiate. So not only is the article very biased, it is also self contradictory.

I hope these examples clearly demonstrates that this article is in serious need of a an unbiased revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.15.170 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I realise this is quite an old comment I’m replying to, but surely the way around this is simply to attribute the sources within the text? That way the conflicting accounts can be laid out. It’s not our job to synthesise (per WP:OR) or make critical assessments of the accuracy, so much, that’s for the historians. Yr Enw (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That is correct, the Crusaders were no different than the Barbarians, there are no good qualities about them. Orthodox Christians weren't allied with the Crusaders, remember the sack of Constantinople. The Muslims never persecuted any religious groups, that is why they controlled the area for for long becaus people preferred their rule, due to low taxes on the economy and high economic freedom as opposed to the Dark Age feudal system. Did you ever see the movie Kingdom of Heaven? That's pretty much how it was like.

67.80.214.153 (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a staight up falsehood. The terrible treatment non-Muslims under Muslim rule is well-documented (example: what used to be the Coptic majority in Egypt). In addition, you dubiously site the sacking of Constantinople as evidence that the Orthodox did not support the Catholic defenders of the Holy Land. The sacking of Constantinople was not until far later in history, and the 3rd Crusade preceeded that by decades. In fact, logistical support for the 3rd Crusade was offered and provided by none other than the Orthodox Byzantines. This comment reeks of historical misinformation. 71.84.74.122 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hazrat Musa

Name the. Nation of Musa 223.123.11.221 (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)